OBJECTIVE: To determine the comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate (MTX) as initial therapy for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).
METHODS: Patients with ERA (symptoms ≤1 year) initiating MTX therapy were included from a multicentre, prospective cohort study. We compared the effectiveness between starting with oral versus subcutaneous MTX over the first year. Longitudinal multivariable models, adjusted for potential baseline and time-varying confounders, were used to compare treatment changes due to inefficacy or toxicity and treatment efficacy (Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS-28), DAS-28 remission and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)).
RESULTS: 666 patients were included (417 oral MTX, 249 subcutaneous MTX). Patients prescribed subcutaneous MTX were prescribed a higher dose of MTX (mean dose over first three months 22.3 mg vs 17.2 mg/week). At 1 year, 49% of patients initially treated with subcutaneous MTX had changed treatment compared with 77% treated with oral MTX. After adjusting for potential confounders, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure ((HR (95% CI) 0.55 (0.39 to 0.79)). Most treatment failures were due to inefficacy with no difference in failure due to toxicity. In multivariable models, subcutaneous MTX was also associated with lower average DAS-28 scores (mean difference (-0.38 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.10)) and a small difference in DAS-28 remission (OR 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). There was no significant difference in sustained remission or HAQ-DI (p values 0.43 and 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with subcutaneous MTX was associated with lower rates of treatment changes, no difference in toxicity and some improvements in disease control versus oral MTX over the first year in patients with ERA.
OBJECTIVES: Methotrexate (MTX) is recognised as the cornerstone of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. For some patients, oral MTX demonstrates variable bioavailability, especially at higher doses. Such concerns may be mitigated by subcutaneous (SC) MTX administration. This study investigated the relative bioavailability, safety, and tolerability of MTX administered either by SC injection with a prefilled autoinjector pen (MTX pen) or orally.
METHODS: This single-centre, open-label, randomised, 2-period, 2-sequence, single-dose, crossover study enrolled healthy subjects aged 18 to 55 years into 1 of 4 dose groups (7.5 mg, 15 mg, 22.5 mg, and 30 mg), where they received a single dose of SC MTX and of the oral MTX tablets. Blood samples were collected from subjects predose and at prespecified time points postdose for pharmacokinetic analyses. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded to assess differences in safety and tolerability.
RESULTS: Bioavailability, as measured by maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) and area under the plasma-concentration curves (AUC0-t), was generally higher with the SC MTX pen compared with oral administration for all dose groups. AUC0-t ratios increased with ascending doses; Cmax ratios did not increase. A total of 80 AEs were reported in 35/62 subjects; none were severe. Differences in the safety profiles were related to the route of administration. Single administrations with the MTX pen were well tolerated at the injection site.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose administration with the SC MTX pen resulted in a higher relative bioavailability compared with oral administration. SC MTX pen administration was associated with fewer gastrointestinal AEs than oral MTX.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative bioavailability, safety and tolerability of oral methotrexate (MTX) and subcutaneous (SC) MTX administered via an auto-injector (MTXAI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: In this randomised, multicenter, open-label, three-way crossover study, patients ≥18 years with adult RA undergoing treatment with MTX for ≥3 months were assigned to receive MTX 10, 15, 20 and 25 mg weekly in a random sequence of three treatments: oral, SC into the abdomen and SC into the thigh. For 24 h after administration of each treatment, blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis and injection sites were assessed.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients completed the study. Systemic exposure of oral MTX plateaued at doses ≥15 mg/week. In contrast, SC MTX demonstrated a linear increase in systemic exposure that was greater than oral MTX at each dose. No unexpected AEs were noted for either formulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Unlike oral MTX, the systemic exposure of SC MTX did not plateau over the doses studied, particularly at doses ≥15 mg/week. In this study, higher systemic MTX exposure was not associated with increases in AEs. Patients with an inadequate clinical response to oral MTX may benefit from higher drug exposure by switching to SC MTX.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01618968.
This prospective study was conducted in rheumatology clinic under the department of medicine of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University from December 2004 to December 2005 to asses the efficacy, safety and compliance of subcutaneous methotrexate (MTX) in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. A total of 92 active rheumatoid arthritis patients according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria were recruited for the trial for six months. Among them 46 cases belonged to injectable MTX group and 46 cases belonged to oral MTX group. Mean±SD age of patients was 45.54±12.42 vs. 44.63±13.99 years in subcutaneous group and oral group respectively. In the subcutaneous group 41 were female and 5 male; in the oral group 34 were female and 12 male. Mean duration of the disease was 49.74 months in subcutaneous group and 49 months in oral group. RA test was positive in 35 cases in both groups whereas Rose Waaler test was positive in 19 patients in subcutaneous group and 14 patients in oral group. At 24 week, response rate of ACR 20 was significantly higher in subcutaneous MTX than oral MTX group (93% vs. 80%, p=0.02). Similarly ACR 50 response was significantly higher in subcutaneous MTX than in oral group (89% vs. 72%, p=0.03). ACR 70 response was not significantly higher in SCMTX group then oral group (11% vs. 9 %, p=0.72). Adverse effects were relatively less in subcutaneous MTX and most common side effects were nausea (37% vs. 63%), vomiting (11% vs. 30%), dyspepsia (29% vs. 48%), dizziness (4l% vs. 52%) and alopecia (72% vs. 85%). The results of the study demonstrated that subcutaneous MTX was significantly more effective than oral MTX at the same dosage in active Rheumatoid arthritis patients with no increase in side effects.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus oral administration of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: MTX-naive patients with active RA (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints >or= 4) were eligible for the study if they had not previously taken biologic agents and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for 2 weeks prior to randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week of MTX either orally (2 7.5-mg tablets plus a dummy prefilled syringe; n=187 patients) or SC (prefilled syringe containing 10 mg/ml plus 2 dummy tablets; n=188 patients) for 24 weeks. At week 16, patients who did not meet the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) were switched from 15 mg of oral MTX to 15 mg of SC MTX and from 15 mg of SC MTX to 20 mg of SC MTX for the remaining 8 weeks, still in a blinded manner. The primary outcome was an ACR20 response at 24 weeks.
RESULTS: At week 24, significantly more patients treated with SC MTX than with oral MTX showed ACR20 (78% versus 70%) and ACR70 (41% versus 33%) responses. Patients with a disease duration >or= 12 months had even higher ACR20 response rates (89% for SC administration and 63% for oral). In 52 of the ACR20 nonresponders (14%), treatment was switched at week 16. Changing from oral to SC MTX and from 15 mg to 20 mg of SC MTX resulted in 30% and 23% ACR20 response rates, respectively, in these patients. MTX was well tolerated. The rate of adverse events was similar in all groups.
CONCLUSION: This 6-month prospective, randomized, controlled trial is the first to examine oral versus SC administration of MTX. We found that SC administration was significantly more effective than oral administration of the same MTX dosage. There was no difference in tolerability.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the bioavailability of higher oral doses of methotrexate (MTX) in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: A pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in 15 patients with RA taking a stable dose of MTX (> or = 25 mg weekly). Separated by 2 weeks, a pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in each patient after oral and subcutaneous administration of the same dose of MTX. MTX serum concentrations were measured by a fluorescence polarization immunoassay. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed with an iterative 2-stage Bayesian population procedure, obtaining population and individual pharmacokinetic parameters.
RESULTS: The median MTX dose was 30 mg weekly (range 25-40 mg). A 2-compartment model best described the serum MTX concentration versus time curves. The mean bioavailability after oral MTX was 0.64 (range 0.21-0.96) compared to subcutaneous administration. There was a statistically significant difference in the bioavailability of the 2 administration regimens.
CONCLUSION: Bioavailability of a higher oral dose of MTX in adult patients with RA is highly variable, and on average two-thirds that of the subcutaneous administration. To improve efficacy of MTX at dosages of 25 mg weekly or more, a change to parenteral administration should be considered.
To determine the comparative effectiveness of oral versus subcutaneous methotrexate (MTX) as initial therapy for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA).
METHODS:
Patients with ERA (symptoms ≤1 year) initiating MTX therapy were included from a multicentre, prospective cohort study. We compared the effectiveness between starting with oral versus subcutaneous MTX over the first year. Longitudinal multivariable models, adjusted for potential baseline and time-varying confounders, were used to compare treatment changes due to inefficacy or toxicity and treatment efficacy (Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS-28), DAS-28 remission and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)).
RESULTS:
666 patients were included (417 oral MTX, 249 subcutaneous MTX). Patients prescribed subcutaneous MTX were prescribed a higher dose of MTX (mean dose over first three months 22.3 mg vs 17.2 mg/week). At 1 year, 49% of patients initially treated with subcutaneous MTX had changed treatment compared with 77% treated with oral MTX. After adjusting for potential confounders, subcutaneous MTX was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure ((HR (95% CI) 0.55 (0.39 to 0.79)). Most treatment failures were due to inefficacy with no difference in failure due to toxicity. In multivariable models, subcutaneous MTX was also associated with lower average DAS-28 scores (mean difference (-0.38 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.10)) and a small difference in DAS-28 remission (OR 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). There was no significant difference in sustained remission or HAQ-DI (p values 0.43 and 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS:
Initial treatment with subcutaneous MTX was associated with lower rates of treatment changes, no difference in toxicity and some improvements in disease control versus oral MTX over the first year in patients with ERA.
